AKSHAY SHARMA Vs. COLLECTOR, RAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. The peculiar circumstances of this case gave rise to filing of this appeal against the order dtd. 22/7/2022 ( Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Family Court, Raipur wherein an application preferred by the appellant for registration of his marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 was rejected by suggesting the appellant to approach the 'choice centre' to get marriage registered under the C.G. Compulsory Registration of Marriage Rules, 2006 (henceforth referred to as ' Rules of 2006 ')

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the C.G. Compulsory Registration of Marriage Rules, 2006 was framed under a specific object pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Smt. Seema V. Ashwani Kumar AIR 2006 SCC 1158:: 2006 (2) AIR Bom R 783. He would submit that reading of the said Rules over and above Special Marriage Act, 1954 (henceforth referred to as ' Act of 1954 ') would be completely misplaced, as the Act of 1954 is a code in itself, which provides for registration of marriage and no nexus to the Rules of 2006. He would therefore submit the right which is created under a statute cannot be delegated to such Rule of 2006 as the certificate issued under the Act of 1954 has a special significance which has its footing in different international forums. During the course of hearing, he placed on record a certificate of marriage issued under the Act of 1954 by the Court of Collector and Special Marriage Officer, Bilaspur in the State of C.G. and submits that accordingly the marriage certificate should have been issued as the appellant and the lady to whom he married are entitled under the Act of 1954 to get a certificate. He further submits that the order passed by the learned Family Court is completely mis-placed by not appreciating the actual law involved in the subject issue.

(3.) Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that for registration of marriage, the Rules of 2006 have been framed by the State of C.G. and the appellant can very well apply under that law. He further submits that application for registration of marriage filed by the appellant has not been refused but it has been referred to apply before the choice centre to get a certificate of marriage under Municipal Laws. He further submits that there is no adverse order against the appellant, consequently, this appeal has no merit.